Equity in Early Childhood Education: A Policy Agenda, Essays (university) of Lease Finance and Investment Banking

Download Equity in Early Childhood Education: A Policy Agenda and more Essays (university) Lease Finance and Investment Banking in PDF only on Docsity!

FROM THE

EARLY

YEARS TO

THE EARLY

GRADES

Data, Research,

and an

Actionable Child

Equity Policy

Agenda

WITH

START

EQUITY

Page 2

Start w ith Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center

Generous funding from: The Heising Simons Foundation T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University

Research assistance from: Brittany Alexander, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Sean Austin, University of Oregon Janniqua Dawkins, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Abby Green, Vanderbilt University Ana Maria Guevara Melendez, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Robert Tovar, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project

Communications support from: Dorie Turner Nolt

Graphic design from: Allison Wachtel

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

Shantel Meek, PhD, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Founder and Director Linda Smith, Bipartisan Policy Center Rosemarie Allen, PhD, Center for Racial Equity and Excellence, Children’s Equity Project partner Evandra Catherine, PhD, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Kelly Edyburn, PhD, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Conor Williams, PhD, The Century Foundation, Children’s Equity Project partner Richard Fabes, PhD, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Kent McIntosh, PhD, University of Oregon, Children’s Equity Project partner Eugene Garcia, PhD, Arizona State University Ruby Takanishi, PhD, New America Senior Research Fellow Lisa Gordon, Bank Street College, Children’s Equity Project partner Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos, PhD, Trinity University, Children’s Equity Project partner Mary Louise Hemmeter, PhD, Vanderbilt University, Children’s Equity Project partner Walter Gilliam, PhD, Yale University, Children’s Equity Project partner Ryan Pontier, PhD, Florida International University, Children’s Equity Project partner

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

OUR WORK WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT:

Diligent review from: Veronica Fernandez, University of Miami, Children’s Equity Project partner Dawn Yazzie, Southwest Human Development Center, Children’s Equity Project partner Doug Steiger, American University, DSteiger Consulting Michael Yudin, The Raben Group Rebecca Cokley, Center for American Progress Shannon Rudisill, Early Childhood Funders Collaborative Megan Vinh, University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill Heather Rieman, The Education Trust Ruth Gallucci, National Association of State Directors of Special Education 619 Affinity Group Annie Davis, Georgetown University

Logistical support from: Arlyn Moreno Luna, Berkeley University Arabella Pluta-Ehlers, Bipartisan Policy Center

Pivotal Policy Area 1:

Pivotal Policy Area 3: TABLE OF

• Executive Summary
• Introduction
• Harsh Discipline and its Disproportionate Application in Learning Settings
• The Data Landscape
• The Research Landscape
• The Policy Landscape
• Takeaways
• Segregated Learning for Young Children with Disabilities Pivotal Policy Area 2:
• The Data Landscape
• The Research Landscape
• The Policy Landscape
• Takeaways
• for Dual Language and English Learners Inequitable Access to High-Quality Learning Opportunities
• The Data Landscape
• The Research Landscape
• The Policy Landscape
• Takeaways
• A Child Equity Policy Agenda
• Conclusion
• Endnotes

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Page 7

Start w ith Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center

A CRITICAL MOMENT

The public health and economic emergencies this country faces as a result of COVID-19 are unprecedented, painful, and large in scale. This pandemic has exposed the precarious economic and social conditions of children and families across the United States, but especially those from historically marginalized communities. Even with incomplete data, it is clear that people of color and people with disabilities are getting sicker and dying at higher rates. This fact is tragic, but not surprising. COVID-19 does not discriminate based on race or income, but our American systems do.

Discriminative housing, financial, labor, education, and criminal justice policies have stacked the deck against people of color. Today, people of color are less likely to have access to health insurance and more likely to face bias within the healthcare system. They are more likely to be exposed to air pollution and lead, live in food deserts and near toxic sites and landfills, and lack access to clean drinking water. Each of these factors, and others, affect underlying health conditions. The broader effects of COVID-19 on Americans’ pocketbooks, education, and other domains of life will be unknown for some time. But it is a fact that a long and living history of discriminatory policies have resulted in people of color having less wealth—by some estimates, ten times less— and dramatically less upward economic mobility than their White counterparts. It is a fact that their children are more likely to attend high-poverty, underfunded schools. It is a fact that nearly one in three Black and Native American children, and one in four Latinx children lived in poverty, before COVID-19 ravaged communities economically.

And now, where the data are disaggregated, we know that children of color are also more likely to suffer directly from losing a loved one from COVID-19. Given the inequity baked into our American systems, it is almost certain that people from marginalized communities will suffer more from this pandemic and its aftermath in ways that include, but also extend far beyond, health consequences.

Our systems have created barriers that stack the deck against many children—and they have to climb over those barriers before they are out of diapers. We have a system that is unequal, unfair, and unsustainable. That is even more apparent today than it was 6 months ago. The compounding effects of discriminatory policies that have caused these conditions are undergirding the wide scale protests across the nation and the globe calling for an end to police violence and racial injustice. With these protests, advocates have brought hope for an America that lives up to its ideals.

Fixing child serving systems must be part of the solution. If all children are given access to the academic and social- emotional supports they need—instead of being kicked out of school, floundering in ineffective and ideologically driven teaching models, and separated into sub-par learning settings—young children who have been locked out of opportunity for generations could get closer to reaching their full potential. If we seize this moment as an opportunity for positive change, for a long overdue pivot toward equity, maybe we can climb out of this turbulent time in American history stronger, and ensure that all of our children, not just some of them, have the opportunity to thrive.

Early learning experiences can have long-lasting, life-changing effects on children. Unfortunately, it is clear that the systems charged with providing those experiences are not living up to their promise.

Page 8

Start w ith Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This report focuses on learning experiences in the early years, birth through age five, and the early grades (K–5). Early learning experiences in these years can have long-lasting, life-changing effects on children; unfortunately, it is clear that the systems charged with providing those experiences are not living up to their promise.

We identified three key policy areas that strongly influence children’s experiences in the classroom and disproportionately disadvantage children of color and children with disabilities. They include:

• Harsh discipline and its disporportionate application
• The segregation of children with disabilities in learning settings
• The inequitable access to bilingual learning opportunities for dual language and English learners

Each of these issue areas share the common theme of exclusion: exclusion from learning settings altogether, exclusion from inclusive learning opportunities, and exclusion from teaching models that we know work. We believe that addressing this specific element can transform children’s learning experiences and change their trajectories in the long term.

Transformation begins with an understanding of both what we know and what we do not know. By taking a deep dive into the data, research, and policy landscapes related to these issue areas, this report proposes a bold, actionable policy agenda to make our learning systems more equitable.

For the United States to live up to its ideals, an array of social issues must be addressed—from housing and healthcare to immigration and mass incarceration. Tackling early learning and education alone is not enough, but it is a necessary step to building a more equitable society.

We centered our work on three policy areas with

the potential to transform early learning experiences

and close opportunity gaps.

Harsh discipline

and its disproportionate

application

The segregation of

children with disabilities in

learning settings

Inequitable and inadequate

access to bilingual learning

opportunities for dual

language and English

learners

We believe that addressing unique learning inequities in tribal communities is another pivotal policy area. In the coming months, we plan to issue a separate report focusing exclusively on this issue.

Page 10

Start w ith Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades (^) Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center

Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center

Corporal punishment

is legal in public

States where corporal punishment is legal in public schools States representing the majority of corporal punishment cases

National data show that more than 160,000 children were subject to corporal punishment in a given year. More than 1,500 of those were preschool students.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

HARSH DISCIPLINE

Discipline can and should be positive, helping to promote a child’s social-emotional development and ability to self-regulate. However, it can also be harsh and cause harm to a child’s well-being. There is no evidence that harsh discipline improves children’s behavior in the short term or over time, but there is an abundance of research showing it is associated with poor outcomes. For the purposes of this report, we define harsh discipline as:

• Exclusionary discipline via expulsion or suspension
• Corporal punishment
• Seclusion
• Restraint used inappropriately

Harsh discipline is common even in the early years. The data show that harsh discipline practices are used frequently in schools and early learning settings and occur even with infants and toddlers.

Consider the case of exclusionary practices, such as expelling or suspending a child. In an analysis of Pre-K through elementary school systems, states reported 1. million cases of young children enrolled in public

schools being disciplined through exclusionary practices in the 2015-2016 school year. A national parent survey found that approximately 50,000 children under five were suspended, and 17,000 were expelled, in a single year.

When it comes to corporal punishment, defined as paddling, spanking, or other forms of physical punishment imposed on a child, there are no federal laws or regulations governing the practice other than those authorizing data collection, and the practice remains legal in 19 states—mostly in the South.

National data show that more than 160,000 children were subject to corporal punishment during a given year. More than 1,500 of these were preschool students.

When it comes to physically restraining children, the latest data show 86,000 children were restrained over the course of a year. 36,000 children were subject to seclusion, the practice of locking children in a room alone without the ability to get out. These practices were never supposed to be commonplace; they were developed to be used exclusively for emergencies and to mitigate physical harm, but they are overused and abused, and sometimes used to punish children for minor misbehavior

It’s disproportionate. This is all happening inequitably.

schools in 19 states.

Page 11

Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center

Black children are disciplined—and children with disabilities are

restrained and secluded—at far higher rates than their peers.

DISCIPLINE RATES:

BLACK STUDENTS

RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION RATES:

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

% of K– student enrollment

% of total students secluded

% of total students restrained

Total PreK–12 enrollment, Black students

Total PreK– enrollment, all races

Total PreK– suspensions and exclusions, all races

Total PreK– suspensions and exclusions, Black students

In K–12 settings, Black children make up 15% of children in schools but 39% of those suspended at least once, 27% of children restrained, and 23% of children secluded. They are also about twice as likely to be corporally punished as their White peers.

There is no evidence that Black children show greater or more severe misbehavior. Instead, research suggests Black children are punished more severely than their peers for the same or similar behaviors and that they are subject to increased scrutiny as early as preschool. Well-established research suggests Black children are often the subjects of implicit bias, with adults perceiving Black children as being older than they are, less innocent than their peers, more culpable and aggressive, and more deserving of harsher punishment than White children. Other factors are also at play.

And we’re not progressing in making meaningful change. Data in K–12 settings indicate that racial disparities in

corporal punishment and exclusionary discipline today are largely consistent, or larger, than when data were first published more than 40 years ago.

Disparities also exist for children with disabilities. In more than half of the schools that use corporal punishment, children with disabilities are disproportionately subject to the practice.

They also are twice as likely to be excluded from K– settings than their peers without disabilities. And children with disabilities make up 12% of student enrollment but 71% and 66% of all children restrained and secluded, respectively.

Expulsion rates in public Pre-K settings are about three times higher than in K–12 settings. Some estimates suggest that the rate in child care settings is as much as 13 times higher than K–12 settings.

Page 13

Start w ith Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center

MAJOR FINDINGS:

SEGREGATED

LEARNING FOR

YOUNG CHILDREN

WITH DISABILITIES

Since the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) nearly 50 years ago, federal law has been clear: All eligible school-aged children with disabilities are guaranteed a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.

The legal foundation for inclusion is supported by a vast body of research that shows that inclusion has many benefits. Children with disabilities in high- quality, inclusive early learning programs make larger gains in their cognitive, communication, and social- emotional development than their peers with disabilities in segregated settings.

Despite this knowledge, progress has been slow. The number of children receiving special education services in inclusive settings has not substantially increased in decades. This is especially so in the preschool years: Data show the number of children with disabilities ages three to five who received special

education services in inclusive settings has inched up by just about 5% since the 1980s. Today, more than half of preschoolers with disabilities still receive their services in segregated settings.

Pre-K is an underused lever to increase inclusion. States with robust public Pre-K systems should have a higher percentage of children with disabilities receiving services in inclusive early learning settings, given the greater number of slots. However, our analysis found that access to Pre-K in states was not related to the proportion of children with disabilities receiving services in inclusive settings.

This isn’t a red or a blue state issue.

• States with the highest rates of enrolling school- aged children with disabilities in regular classes are Alabama, Nebraska, Florida, Colorado, and Kentucky.
• States with the lowest rates of school-aged children with disabilities in inclusive classes include Hawaii, New Jersey, Montana, Arkansas, and Illinois.

It is important to note that these data only speak to physical placement of service delivery, not quality of inclusion.

There are large disparities when it comes to who gets access to inclusive learning. For example, 13% of children identified with multiple disabilities and 17% of

Inclusion of preschoolers with

disabilities varies by state.

Rates of providing services to preschool and/or school-aged children with disabilities in regular early childhood programs

Highest rates of inclusion

Lowest rates of inclusion

Today, more than half of preschoolers with disabilities still receive their services in segregated settings.

Page 14

Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center

children identified with intellectual disabilities spend the majority of their day in regular classes, compared to about two-thirds of all other children with disabilities. Children identified with emotional disturbances also are less likely to spend time in general education settings.

Only 13% of children identified with multiple disabilities and 17% of children identified with intellectual disabilities spend the majority of their day in regular classes, compared to about two-thirds of all other children with disabilities.

Black children are overrepresented in special education, but not in early intervention (though some scholars have recently contested this finding). In examining the

intersections between race and disability category, Black children are at least twice as likely to be identified with an intellectual disability or emotional disturbance than all other racial/ethnic groups combined; children with these disabilities are less likely to spend time in general education classrooms than their peers with other disabilities. In some places, the result is segregated special education placements that tend to mirror racial segregation patterns of the past.

Other major barriers to inclusion are ableism, which influences teacher and administrator attitudes and beliefs around the inclusion of students with disabilities, educator training to guide the use of practices that support inclusion, and the need for meaningful state reforms and funding increases.

Fully fund IDEA

Monitor and hold states accountable for placement practices that ensure students are served in inclusive settings

Increase funding for infants and toddlers with disabilities

Request 3 GAO reports on the costs of funding inclusive services, the effects of failing to fully fund IDEA, and implementation of the Equity in IDEA rule

Increase funding for training, monitoring, and accountability (^) Incentivize inclusion through grants

Use federal funds to incentivize states to develop and test teaching models that support inclusion

Ensure early learning programs are ADA compliant

Monitor districts on inclusion and hold them accountable

Increase funding for inclusion

Require 10% of early childhood enrollment across programs to be for children with disabilities or delays

Ensure IEP teams are well-trained and accountable for inclusion

Deploy teams to work on this issue locally Give the Dept of Ed. authority to hold states accountable for funding their share of IDEA services, in line with findings from the above GAO studies

INCREASING INCLUSION OF CHILDREN

WITH DISABILITIES IN LEARNING SETTINGS:

SOLUTIONS BEGIN WITH POLICY CHANGE.

Congress should: Federal agencies States should: Districts should:

should: Make meaningful

reforms to expand access to inclusive learning for children with disabilities, including restructuring budgets, physical space, and staffing structures; training IEP teams on inclusion; formalizing partnerships with community-based early childhood providers; and requiring joint training for early and special educators

See page 108 for a complete policy agenda.

Page 16

Start w ith Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Page 16 (^) Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy CenterThe State of Equity in Learning Settings—From the Early Years to the Early Grades

There is a lack of bilingual education nationwide. In some places where bilingual learning does exist, DLLs and ELs are underrepresented; in other places, they are locked out as a matter of policy.

English immersion or “English-only” programs are commonplace for DLLs and ELs, but they are not effective. In K–12 settings, these models sometimes result in the segregation of students learning English. Research shows DLLs who are first exposed to English in kindergarten and remain in English-dominant instructional environments tend to fall behind their early-proficient and monolingual English-speaking peers on academic skills (as measured in English).

This has contributed to a gap between DLLs’ and ELs’ potential and their outcomes. Beyond a lack of access to appropriate learning approaches, this gap

is tied to a societal bias in the United States in favor of monolingualism. Tests and assessments are primarily conducted in English, and bilingualism is only valued for some and seen as a deficit for DLLs and ELs. Combined these factors disadvantage children and create misperceptions about DLLs’ and ELs’ potential.

For DLLs, bilingual learning is not an optional enrichment, as it is for children who speak English as a first language. It can make or break their access to a quality education altogether. It is the difference between enrichment and equity.

Assessment problems cannot be overlooked. In addition to improving access to high-quality bilingual learning models, we need better assessments for DLLs and ELs so we can effectively measure both student progress and program effectiveness: Too often, assessments are conducted exclusively in English, which end up assessing a child’s English skills rather than subject matter content. And although the field lacks assessment tools in many languages, there are tools in Spanish—by far the most commonly spoken language by DLLs and ELs in this country‚ that are not being used enough.

DUAL LANGUAGE LEARNERS ENROLLED IN THESE INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

ARE ARE MORE LIKELY TO:

Become proficient in English more quickly

Outperform peers in both math and reading

Reach national academic performance norms

Become biliterate

Dual language instruction creates lasting,

wide-ranging benefits for all students.

For dual language learners, bilingual education is not an optional opportunity for enrichment. It can make or break their access to a quality education altogether.

Page 17

Start w ith Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center

Head Start has the most comprehensive standards for DLLs across early learning systems. Other obstacles to access and opportunity are also significant. The national shortage of credentialed bilingual teachers limits access to strong DLI programs. In addition, research finds that teacher bias and differential expectations for DLLs and ELs also impact the success of young learners. Nationally representative data show that teachers have lower academic expectations for children classified as ELs; this is not the case in bilingual schools. Similarly, in countries that place value on speaking multiple languages, the academic differences between monolingual and bilingual students are small or nonexistent.

The federal and state policy landscape:

Federal funding for English learners is not anywhere near sufficient. Title III funding under ESSA is designed to support ELs but has been stagnant for years, not even keeping pace with inflation or the increase in the number of ELs in the country.

States and districts play a significant role in EL policy. In 2015, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, which shifted much of the responsibility for decision making and accountability related to English learners to the states.

Bilingual learning opportunities are growing, but they are not always growing equitably. A number of cities and states are trying to expand access to bilingual learning programs, but the extent to which English learners and dual language learners have access has not been analyzed.

Head Start has the most comprehensive standards for DLLs across early learning systems.

Page 19 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades

LOOKING AHEAD

COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated longstanding inequities in our learning systems, starting at the youngest ages. The time for change is now. In fact, it is especially now. Policymakers’ responses to both the pandemic and to the uprising against racial injustice will determine whether children continue to be locked out of opportunity for another generation—or longer—or are given the fair chance they need to reach their full potential. Our policy agenda helps move us in the direction of the latter.

These and other reforms that address inequities in learning, are critical to our economy, our capacity to be competitive on a global scale, and our ability to live up to the core principles of equality on which this country was founded. But even more fundamentally, they are necessary because all children deserve the chance to reach their full potential, regardless of what they look like, where they are from, or what disability they may have. We can and must do better.

Read our full report for the complete policy agenda.

We hope this report will serve as a guide, reference, and rallying cry for bringing about change.

INTRODUCTION